Retirement timing is an issue of great political importance these days. Policy-makers develop various initiatives encouraging workers to postpone retirement beyond the statutory retirement age. This effort brings, however, just minimal outcomes. Although increasing opportunities and abilities to work in old age, in some countries people tend to retire as soon as it is possible. In economic terms, they make suboptimal (irrational) decisions.

This paper investigates choices about “distributional fairness” (sometimes called “distributive justice”), i.e., selection of the proper way for resources to be distributed in group. The study finds evidence that several of the same biases of risky decision making also apply to choices about distributional fairness, in particular focusing on the key biases that lead to prospect theory. This finding is achieved by introducing a novel thought experiment regarding the fairness of resource distributions, then manipulating the percentage of individuals who gain or lose in these distributions, and changing the sizes of gains and losses. Shared biases may mean similar heuristics are being employed. The mechanism behind this result leaves room for future exploration, as do the implications of the finding for related applications in inequality research.

The Allais Paradox, or common consequence effect, has been a standard challenge to normative theories of risky choice since its proposal over 60 years ago. However, neither its causes nor the conditions necessary to create the effect are well understood. Two experiments test the effects of losses and event splitting on the Allais Paradox. Experiment 1 found that the Allais Paradox occurs for both gain and mixed gambles and is reflected for loss gambles produced by reflection across the origin. Experiment 2 found that the Allais Paradox is eliminated by splitting the outcomes even when the probabilities used do not increase the salience of the common consequence. The results of Experiment 1 are consistent with Cumulative Prospect Theory, the current leading theory of risky choice. However, the results of Experiment 2 are problematic for Cumulative Prospect Theory and suggest that alternate explanations for the Allais Paradox must be sought.

People often make more rational choices between monetary prospects when their choices will be played out many times rather than just once. For example, previous research has shown that the certainty effect and the possibility effect (two common-ratio effects that violate expected utility theory) are eliminated in multiple-play decisions. This finding is challenged by seven new studies (N = 2391) and two small meta-analyses. Results indicate that, on average, certainty and possibility effects are reduced but not eliminated in multiple-play decisions. Moreover, in our within-participants studies, the certainty and possibility choice patterns almost always remained the modal or majority patterns. Our primary results were not reliably affected by prompts that encouraged a long-run perspective, by participants’ insight into long-run payoffs, or by participants’ numeracy. The persistence of common-ratio effects suggests that the oft-cited benefits of multiple plays for the rationality of decision makers’ choices may be smaller than previously realized.